The current reward mechanisms in place for KeeperDAO rewards users of the protocol for any financial value they add. This is either through lending, providing liquidity, or trading using the hiding game limit orders. This reward model was ideal at the time but now that governance has been put in the hands of the community, Rook rewards should also be given to KIP authors.
Some of KeeperDAO’s founding principles are to reward those who add value and to solve hard problems. By rewarding authors who draft KIPs that pass crowd consensus it’s safe to reason that they are improving the protocol in the communities eyes. Following that reasoning, a portion of emissions for each quarter should be allocated to rewarding users who draft passing KIPs. This would help jumpstart governance due to newly provided financial incentives for providing ideas on what to do with the treasury and protocol. Furthermore, this would be the first way for KeeperDAO to reward users at large without any financial benefits for the project. Instead, users are rewarded based on effort, intellect, and merit. This would allow users who would otherwise be unable to have investment positions in Rook for a financial reason to participate in voting due to their contributions to governance.
Specific figures for rewards to KIP draft authors should be discussed in governance roundtables to adequately determine reward values that reflect the effort of drafting a KIP but as a placeholder, $1000 in Rook can be used a placeholder. A retroactive airdrop can be done to KIP authors who drafted kips before this proposal has reached a consensus. A vesting period can be put on these rewards depending on the views of the community on these emissions or if higher rewards are given to authors.
The limitations of a proposal like this would be the flood of poor ideas trying to simply pass KIPs for financial incentives. To be fair, scholarship applications can be used as a point of reference for a reward scheme like this, and the effort to simply draft a KIP might be high enough to deter these individuals.
completely agree with this proposal. we must reward the bright minds in this community before other communities poach their talent.
The problem you are trying to address is valid - fostering participation and valid ideas. That said, I can see this proposed approach having a lot of undesirable externalities: as mentioned, floods of subpar ideas, process for the sake of process, a lot of inefficiencies for Sophons and other people who are generally interested and committing time to read. In short, I fear this would saturate the forum and also create a lot of social manipulation to try and push KIPs through. We want the focus to be on high quality, concrete, clear, and actionable KIPs that improve the team and protocol. This is certainly an area with a lot of room for improvement. I hope this kickstarts the discussion there. I think we need to pontification about what implementations would boil things down to desirable outcomes with minimal negative externalities.
I understand what you are saying, in my mind, these are tw of the ways to potentially prevent the flood of subpar ideas.
Having a reputation system on the forum were to draft KIP you need to reach a certain level
-You can level up your reputation by commenting on existing KIP drafts
-Repuation can also decrease based on poor behavior in the forum
Having a Rook threshold to be able to write KIP drafts
-This is nice because it increases our Sybil valuation making our governance system more resilient
-If a user has a good idea but not enough rook they can just ask a Sophon or mod for an account reputation upgrade
Also, you have to consider that your concerns are speculation, the effort required might deter the authors of low-quality ideas. Having it as a trial period for 10 KIPs with a reward of $400 might be a good middle ground. After the trial period, Governance mining can be iterated upon with the information acquired from the trial period.
An even easier solution is to only rewards KIPs that achieve a ‘final’ status.
My draft was referring to KIP’s who passed voting not just any submissions
I strongly dislike this, as it’s somewhat congruent to censorship
These ideas generally make things a lot more complicated, and don’t incentivize quality as directly as I think we can come up with. The notions to reward KIPs that receive a final status are nice.
But, I also don’t think it should be ROOK. Then we have to deal with multi-sigs, aligning multi-sigs, and again procure people who are just digging for gold to dump it.
There might be some social value we can give - eg emojis on the discord, a special channel for kippers, etc.
Also, is this not censorship based on intellect at least with a ROOK threshold you have people who are financially tied to the project submitting ideas. Also, anybody can submit ideas they would just need to ask a Sophon for permission if they don’t have the required ROOK.
I am not a fan of this, as my uncle says “money talks, bullshit walks” I think that rewards should be more substantial than discord emojis
Okay, sure. But the reason people should be writing KIPs is to help the protocol succeed, and transitively make money on their ROOK. So, we already have financial incentive
But that financial incentive is for all holders and already exists. If there is no way to provide supplementary rewards to authors of passed KIPs then there is no difference to our current reward structure
My reasoning here is that the benefits of authoring a passed KIP outweigh the selling pressure from a single KIP. Also, users who authors KIP are most likely not aligned with short-term gains from selling their ROOK rewards.
IMO we should have a call about this much easier to outline both of our ideas
A chat in discord is much better than a community call I think. It’s difficult to find a time that works for everyone. But the kips channel on discord is a good place to hash out ideas and it allows everyone to do so whenever they are free.